This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration.Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
Polycom, Inc. (“Polycom” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:PLCM), announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the “Class”) comprising all purchasers of Polycom securities between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

A COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO
SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED.

Polycom provides standards-based unified communications and collaboration, including video, voice and content-management and content-sharing solutions, mobile device applications, browser-based video collaboration and cloud-delivered services. On July 23, 2013 Polycom issued a press release announcing the resignation of the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Miller. According to the Company, on July 17, 2013 the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors completed “a review of certain of Mr. Miller’s expense submissions” and found “certain irregularities in these submissions.” Following this news, the price of Polycom shares fell $1.69, or over 15%, to $9.49 per share on July 24, 2013, on volume of more than 14 million shares traded.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s CEO had been submitting inappropriate and irregular expense submissions; (2) the Company’s CEO was violating the Company’s code of conduct and was subject to dismissal at all relevant times; (3) the Company did not have effective internal controls over its business operations thus materially impacting the Company’s current and previous financial statements; (4) the CEO’s improper conduct created a risk that he would be terminated from the Company, jeopardizing the Company’s future success; and (5) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.